alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JULY 27, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-10571

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00244-CR-1-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

JAMES WESLEY HUNT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

 (July 27, 2007)

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On pleas of guilty to possession with intent to use unlawfully five or more
2

identification documents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(3), and aggravated

identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), the district court sentenced

appellant to consecutive prison terms of 67 months and 24 months. He now

appeals these sentences, contending that they are unreasonable on the ground that

the district court, in fashioning the sentences, failed to consider the sentencing

factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

 Section 3553(a)’s factors include, in subpart (2), 

the need for the sentence imposed –

 (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the

law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;

 (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

 (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) (A),(B),(C). 

The transcript of the sentencing hearing reflects that the district court duly

considered the § 3553(a) factors, in particular, factors (A), (B), and (C). Of great

significance to the court was appellant’s lengthy criminal record. It appeared to the

court that appellant’s previous convictions and the sentences he had served had not

changed his behavior one whit – they had not deterred his penchant for criminal

behavior. The court therefore announced that imprisonment was necessary both to

protect the public from appellant’s future criminal activity and to deter others from

following in appellant’s footsteps. Although the court did not refer specifically to
3

factors (B) and (C), it is obvious to us that it had those factors in mind in

fashioning appellant’s sentence package. It is also obvious that the court

considered the sentencing need expressed in factor (A), especially the need for the

sentence package to promote respect for the law.

Appellant’s sentences are

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302



I, Jonathan M. Rothberg, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of CuraGen Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: November 8, 2004



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ Jonathan M. Rothberg, Ph.D.       
|Jonathan M. Rothberg, Ph.D.           
|Chief Executive Officer, President and
|Chairman of the Board
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 USC SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Medallion Financial Corp. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates
and for the periods expressed in the Report.



|    |  |                                                  
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Larry D. Hall                                
|    |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 13, 2008
# C_2022463EN.01002301.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Malacalza Investimenti v ECB

(Case T-552/19 OP) (1)

(Access to documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - ECB’s decision to place Banca Carige under temporary administration - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information protected as such under EU law - General presumption of confidentiality - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a particular natural or legal person, including intellectual property - Meaning of confidential information - Obligation to state reasons - Opposition)

(2022/C 463/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant in the main proceedings: Malacalza Investimenti Srl (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: P. Ghiglione, E. De Giorgi, L. Amicarelli and S. Casini, lawyers)

Defendant in the main proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: A. Riso, F. von Lindeiner and M. Van Hoecke, acting as Agents, and by D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero and O. Pollicino, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 166(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the European Central Bank (ECB) applies to have set aside the judgment of 25 June 2020, Malacalza Investimenti v ECB (T-552/19, EU:T:2020:294), which annulled ECB Decision LS/LdG/19/185 of 12 June 2019 refusing to grant access to the decision of the Governing Council of the ECB of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration and other documents relating thereto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application to have set aside the judgment of 25 June 2020, Malacalza Investimenti v ECB, T-552/19, EU:T:2020:294, delivered by default, which annulled the ECB’s decision of 12 June 2019 refusing access to its decision of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration and to other documents relating thereto and, consequently, confirms the annulment of the ECB’s decision of 12 June 2019 set out in the judgment by default; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application to have set aside the judgment of 25 June 2020, Malacalza Investimenti v ECB, T-552/19, EU:T:2020:294, delivered by default, which annulled the ECB’s decision of 12 June 2019 refusing access to its decision of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration and to other documents relating thereto and, consequently, confirms the annulment of the ECB’s decision of 12 June 2019 set out in the judgment by default;

| 2. | Orders the ECB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the ECB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---
EXHIBIT 15

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Supervisory Board of SAP AG:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-60399, 333-65083, 333-30380, 333-41762,
333-63496, 333-63464, 333-102564, 333-167870 and 333-173782) on Form S-8 of SAP AG of our report dated February 21, 2013, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of SAP AG as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the
related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2012, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2012, which report appears in the December 31, 2012 annual report on Form 20-F of SAP AG.



/s/ KPMG AG
Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft


Mannheim, Germany

March 22, 2013
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

October 01, 2010

Mr. James C. Ho

Solicitor General of Texas 

P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059)

Austin, TX 78711-2548

Mr. Max Ralph Tarbox

McWorther Cobb and Johnson LLP

PO Box 2547

Lubbock, TX 79408

Mr. Jeffrey S. Boyd

Thompson & Knight LLP

98 San Jacinto Blvd. , Suite 1900

Austin, TX 78701

RE:Case Number:  08-0523

Court of Appeals Number:  03-07-00249-CV

Trial Court Number:  D-1-GN-06-004663

Style:TEXAS LOTTERY COMMISSION

v.

FIRST STATE BANK OF DEQUEEN, STONE STREET CAPITAL, INC., AND CLETIUS L. IRVAN

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion and issued the enclosed judgment in the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@courts.state.tx.us or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.  The Motion to Substitute Parties is dismissed as moot.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosure

**Case No. 08-0523Page 2**
NUMBER 13-14-00332-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI C EDINBURG

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellant,

v.

AMIR TURCIOS, Appellee.

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

ORDER 

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellee’s third unopposed motion for extension 

of time to file the brief. This Court has previously granted appellee two extensions for 

the filing of appellee’s brief in this cause. The appellee’s current deadline for filing 

appellee’s brief is February 23, 2015. 
2

The Court, having fully examined and considered appellee's third motion for 

extension of time to file the brief, is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellee's

motion for extension of time to file the brief should be granted. 

Appellee’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief is hereby granted, and 

the Honorable Joseph A. Connors III, counsel for appellees, is hereby ORDERED to file 

the appellee’s brief with this Court on or before April 30, 2015. No further extensions will 

be granted in this matter.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed 

The 20th day of March, 2015.
# C_2020297EN.01002001.xml

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/20

---

Appeal brought on 6 June 2019 by Abaco Energy SA and Others against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2019 in Case T-186/18, Abaco Energy and Others v Commission

(Case C-436/19 P)

(2020/C 297/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Abaco Energy SA and Others (represented by: P. Holtrop, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 21 July 2020, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that the appellants shall bear their own costs.

---
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PRYMAS NAZRETH VAZ;

MONALISA NAPOLIAN DIAS,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70646

Agency Nos. A075-724-257

 A075-724-258

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Prymas Nazreth Vaz and Monalisa Napolian Dias, natives and citizens of

India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed

by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d

FILED

SEP 24 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70646

1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition

for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ second motion

to reopen as untimely and numerically barred where they filed it over four years

after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners

failed to establish changed conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory

exception to the time limitation and numerical bar, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);

see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence must

demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in order to reopen proceedings based

on changed country conditions).

Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to meaningfully consider the

evidence submitted with the motion to reopen is belied by the record. See Lata v.

INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for petitioner to prevail

on a due process claim). 

Finally, this court lacks jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that

their former counsel was ineffective. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678

(9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the

agency). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
# C_2020222EN.01002301.xml

| 6.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/23

---

Order of the General Court of 6 May 2020 — Sabo and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-141/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Environment - Energy - Directive (EU) 2018/2001 - Inclusion of forest biomass among the sources of renewable energy - Act not of individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 222/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Peter Sabo (Tulčik, Slovakia) and the 9 other applicants whose names appear in the Annex to the order (represented by: R. Smith, A. Dews and C. Day, Solicitors, D. Wolfe QC and P. Lockley and B. Mitchell, Barristers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: I. McDowell, C. Ionescu Dima and A. Tamás, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Lo Monaco and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment in part of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (OJ 2018 L 328, p. 82), in so far as it includes forest biomass among the sources of renewable energy.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene made by the Commission, U.S. Industrial Pellet Association, Stichting Dutch Biomass Certification and Stichting RBCN (Rotterdam Biomass Commodities Network). |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene made by the Commission, U.S. Industrial Pellet Association, Stichting Dutch Biomass Certification and Stichting RBCN (Rotterdam Biomass Commodities Network).

| 3. | Mr Peter Sabo and the other applicants whose names appear in the Annex shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Peter Sabo and the other applicants whose names appear in the Annex shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

| 4. | The Commission, U.S. Industrial Pellet Association, Stichting Dutch Biomass Certification and Stichting RBCN (Rotterdam Biomass Commodities Network) shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission, U.S. Industrial Pellet Association, Stichting Dutch Biomass Certification and Stichting RBCN (Rotterdam Biomass Commodities Network) shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---
IIA 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 48 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue Service relating 

to the health insurance premium tax credit. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2012 

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin introduced the following joint resolution; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue 

Service relating to the health insurance premium tax credit. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the In4 ternal Revenue Service relating to the health insurance 

5 premium tax credit (published at 77 Fed. Reg. 30377 

6 (Wednesday, May 23, 2012)), and such rule shall have no 

7 force or effect. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2021035EN.01004701.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2020 — Man and Machine v EUIPO — Bim Freelance (bim ready)

(Case T-819/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark bim ready - Earlier EU figurative mark BIM freelance - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Restriction of the services covered by the mark applied for)

(2021/C 35/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Man and Machine Ltd (Thame, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Peto and C. Neu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Bim Freelance Corp. (Miami, Florida, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 September 2019 (Case R 317/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bim Freelance and Man and Machine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 September 2019 (Case R 317/2019-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 September 2019 (Case R 317/2019-1);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---
#### BAUER v. HART et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 22, 1907.)

Dismissai>-Want of Prosecution.

Dismissal for want of prosecution of an action brought in 1892 to charge the trustees of a corporation with a liability imposed by the act of incorporation was properly refused, where an interlocutory judgment entered July 13, 1899, was reversed in April, 1903, on the appeal of several defendants, including the movants for dismissal, and since then several defendants have died and there has been delay in reviving the actions against their personal representatives.

ÍEd. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 17, Dismissal and Non-suit, §§ 140. 141.]

Appeal from Special Term.

Action by Louis Bauer against George S. Hart and others, impleaded with others. From an order denying a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM, Mc-LAUGHLIN, HOUGHTON, and SCOTT, JJ.

Alfred H. Holbrook, for appellants.

H. V. Rutherford, for respondent.

INGRAHAM, J.

This action, which was to charge -the trustees of a corporation with the liability imposed by the act of incorporation, was commenced in March, 1892. There had been an interlocutory judgment entered on July 13, 1899, which, in April, 1903, was reversed by this court on the appeal of seven of the defendants, including the moving parties. Since that time several of the defendants have died, and there has been delay in reviving the actions against their personal representatives, and the case has not been again brought on for trial. We have come to the conclusion that the court b'elow was justified in *878denying this motion upon the papers presented. We express no opinion upon the effect of the fact that the indebtedness of the corporation largely exceeds the liability of all the directors as to the necessity of making all of the directors or their personal representatives parties. That question can be submitted and determined upon the trial of the action. We think, however, that the case should now be disposed of, and the affirmance of this order is without prejudice to a renewal of the motion in the event that the plaintiff should not promptly bring the case on for trial.

The order is therefore affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.